6 ms·

There is a nice PBS documentary about Pegasus's NSO https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/global-spyware-scandal-exposing-pegasus/ https://www.pbs.org/

by caisah 3y ago

There is a nice PBS documentary about Pegasus's NSO https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/global-spyware-scandal-exposing-pegasus/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/global-spywar.... It looks like NSO is backed up by the Israeli government. They say their software is only sold to governments which were previously vetted, but the reality is that most of the time they sell to authoritarian states which monitor and persecute people opposing the regime.

allie1 3y ago
To sell the software, they need approval from Israel’s govt, as the software is treated as a weapon
- dkindler 3y ago
  The US gov't almost certainly has a say as well.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    The US has their own version, called the NSA. Available to hire via really simple framing. Guaranteed whomever is caught will be in prison for years just to get a trial to prove they're innocent.
    - bink 3y ago
      The US has private firms buying, developing, and selling malware as well. NSO group is just a little more open and shameless about it.
goodluckchuck 3y ago
The ties to government are a red herring. Hacking into people’s private phones and computer systems is generally immoral and illegal. It generally continues to be immoral and illegal when governments do it. Except it also becomes more outrageous, because governments are supposed to protect us from this sort of thing.
- franga2000 3y ago
  I don't see why the government doing it would make it more outrageous. If democratically elected leaders pass a law outlining when and how the cops should be able to access private devices, a judge looks over a specific case and signs a warrant, the cops use a hacking tool to catch a terrorist and the evidence is presented in court, this seems like the most excusable use of hacking tools that I can think of. The government is given power over people in order to protect us from other people and this is one tool to do it. They have cops with guns and soldiers with tanks, they can break in, search and seize, they can lock people in prison. All of these things are tools and it's they way they're used that decides what's immoral or outrageous. The bigger problem here is that a private company has these tools and can use and sell then with no oversight.
  - goodluckchuck 3y ago
    It does if we grant the two the same assumptions. If we assume that serious, unjustified harm would occur by failing to act, and they are in a reasonable position to act… then I’d say a private company is equally justified in doing the same thing. However, you’re assuming the government is justified merely because it’s the government.
    - nverno 3y ago
      Maybe it depends on the country, but private companies cant generally get warrants to infringe on people's rights afaik. If justified is interpreted as 'legally justified', then it would make sense that only government agents could be justified to act in this manner. Of course, government agents are known to operate outside the law as well.
      - goodluckchuck 3y ago
        I wouldn’t assume that private companies and individuals cannot get warrants. However, they look very different. The major distinction is that when a private party requests an injunction allowing them to e.g. trespass on their neighbor’s land, the court will require notice and a hearing for the defendant. So, if a chemical plant needs to do earth works on a neighbor’s land to prevent a collapse, etc. the judiciary may well issue an order requiring the neighbor to let the company enter. Frankly, notice and hearing should probably be required for some criminal warrants too. I can think of a few indictments and arrest warrants that have recently been issued where there is a genuine question as to probable cause and the alleged illegality of the conduct. It’s not fair for people who are not a flight risk to be arrested (and often imprisoned) with no opportunity to defend themselves.
deskamess 3y ago
The Indian government is a customer too.
fweimer 3y ago
The way this works is that in addition to the more colorful clients, you absolutely need to make sure that you have a sufficient number of clients among law enforcement and security services in countries with a decent(-ish) track record regarding human rights. This way, your products and services are not obviously illegal. You can even tell your employees that your products and services are saving lives because it's actually true. This strategy mostly works because the major operating system suppliers refuse to implement requested lawful intercept solutions for their consumer products. Instead, we end up with companies that try to fill the gaps, making a business of exploiting security flaws. It's possible for the OS vendors to completely dry this swamp, by offering competing services to law enforcement using the interfaces they already have (automated software updates, for example). The reputable clients would migrate rather quickly. These companies would be left with just the shady clients, making it much more difficult to justify their continued existence.
- itronitron 3y ago
  >> by offering competing services That is a slippery slope though, because the OS vendors could offer Law Enforcement everything today, and there will be a special request made for a little something extra tomorrow.
- judiisis 3y ago
  Well Google and apple already have a lawful intercepting solution,they just don't have full zero day backdoor
- abwizz 3y ago
  idk seems to me that what you wish for is already here. os-vendors are predominiantly us-american and the rest of the world has to get their lawful interception on the free market, no?
- luch 3y ago
  Enabling lawful interceptions would only dry half the swamp, the other half being clandestine intelligence operations on foreign targets. No way any reputable OS vendor would agree to enable, for example, Dutch intelligence services spying on Russian citizens living in the UK.

by caisah 3y ago

allie1 3y ago

To sell the software, they need approval from Israel’s govt, as the software is treated as a weapon

dkindler 3y ago
The US gov't almost certainly has a say as well.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  The US has their own version, called the NSA. Available to hire via really simple framing. Guaranteed whomever is caught will be in prison for years just to get a trial to prove they're innocent.
  - bink 3y ago
    The US has private firms buying, developing, and selling malware as well. NSO group is just a little more open and shameless about it.

goodluckchuck 3y ago

The ties to government are a red herring. Hacking into people’s private phones and computer systems is generally immoral and illegal. It generally continues to be immoral and illegal when governments do it. Except it also becomes more outrageous, because governments are supposed to protect us from this sort of thing.

franga2000 3y ago
I don't see why the government doing it would make it more outrageous. If democratically elected leaders pass a law outlining when and how the cops should be able to access private devices, a judge looks over a specific case and signs a warrant, the cops use a hacking tool to catch a terrorist and the evidence is presented in court, this seems like the most excusable use of hacking tools that I can think of. The government is given power over people in order to protect us from other people and this is one tool to do it. They have cops with guns and soldiers with tanks, they can break in, search and seize, they can lock people in prison. All of these things are tools and it's they way they're used that decides what's immoral or outrageous. The bigger problem here is that a private company has these tools and can use and sell then with no oversight.
- goodluckchuck 3y ago
  It does if we grant the two the same assumptions. If we assume that serious, unjustified harm would occur by failing to act, and they are in a reasonable position to act… then I’d say a private company is equally justified in doing the same thing. However, you’re assuming the government is justified merely because it’s the government.
  - nverno 3y ago
    Maybe it depends on the country, but private companies cant generally get warrants to infringe on people's rights afaik. If justified is interpreted as 'legally justified', then it would make sense that only government agents could be justified to act in this manner. Of course, government agents are known to operate outside the law as well.
    - goodluckchuck 3y ago
      I wouldn’t assume that private companies and individuals cannot get warrants. However, they look very different. The major distinction is that when a private party requests an injunction allowing them to e.g. trespass on their neighbor’s land, the court will require notice and a hearing for the defendant. So, if a chemical plant needs to do earth works on a neighbor’s land to prevent a collapse, etc. the judiciary may well issue an order requiring the neighbor to let the company enter. Frankly, notice and hearing should probably be required for some criminal warrants too. I can think of a few indictments and arrest warrants that have recently been issued where there is a genuine question as to probable cause and the alleged illegality of the conduct. It’s not fair for people who are not a flight risk to be arrested (and often imprisoned) with no opportunity to defend themselves.

deskamess 3y ago

The Indian government is a customer too.

fweimer 3y ago

The way this works is that in addition to the more colorful clients, you absolutely need to make sure that you have a sufficient number of clients among law enforcement and security services in countries with a decent(-ish) track record regarding human rights. This way, your products and services are not obviously illegal. You can even tell your employees that your products and services are saving lives because it's actually true. This strategy mostly works because the major operating system suppliers refuse to implement requested lawful intercept solutions for their consumer products. Instead, we end up with companies that try to fill the gaps, making a business of exploiting security flaws. It's possible for the OS vendors to completely dry this swamp, by offering competing services to law enforcement using the interfaces they already have (automated software updates, for example). The reputable clients would migrate rather quickly. These companies would be left with just the shady clients, making it much more difficult to justify their continued existence.

itronitron 3y ago
>> by offering competing services That is a slippery slope though, because the OS vendors could offer Law Enforcement everything today, and there will be a special request made for a little something extra tomorrow.
judiisis 3y ago
Well Google and apple already have a lawful intercepting solution,they just don't have full zero day backdoor
abwizz 3y ago
idk seems to me that what you wish for is already here. os-vendors are predominiantly us-american and the rest of the world has to get their lawful interception on the free market, no?
luch 3y ago
Enabling lawful interceptions would only dry half the swamp, the other half being clandestine intelligence operations on foreign targets. No way any reputable OS vendor would agree to enable, for example, Dutch intelligence services spying on Russian citizens living in the UK.